Defeating Netanyahu Is Not Good Enough

With the election only days away, polls continue to show that the coalition and opposition blocs are running neck and neck. Future historians will look at this juncture and try to comprehend how it is that as Israel marked the third anniversary of the October 7 massacre, graphics illustrating the pro-Netanyahu bloc closing in on the anti-Netanyahu bloc appeared on Israeli television screens only moments after images of a terrified Shiri Bibas being dragged across the border with her two young children cradled in her arms. With the benefit of the perspective of time and access to information that has yet to emerge, historians will likely proffer logical explanations of what shaped the psyche of the Israeli electorate on October 27, 2026. I, however, am finding it difficult to accept the picture that is unfolding, and this is my last-ditch appeal to what’s left of the Israeli left to vote for the only parties that offer hope of a real change.

If the polls are to be believed, three years of on-again/off-again wars on multiple fronts, deteriorating relations with democratic allies, strengthening ties with autocratic regimes, a skyrocketing cost of living, and the daily emergence of new reports about what Prime Minister Netanyahu knew before 6:29 AM on that terrible day may not be enough for the public to conclude that the man who held the highest position in the land as Israel’s southern border was breeched by thousands with blood in their eyes needs to go home.

One clue as to the source of the close race between the camps lies in the “government of change” misnomer copied from the Bennett-Lapid coalition of 2021 and pasted across the not-so-strange bedfellows making up the current anti-Netanyahu bloc.  At the time, Bennett and Lapid joined forces to put together a coalition that truly spanned the political spectrum, from the right-wing Yamina to the left-wing Meretz and, for the first time, included an independent Arab party in the form of the United Arab List (UAL). This diverse group was united around one clear goal: end the political stalemate that had led to four elections within two years and oust the prime minister who was (and remains) on trial for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust.

The current opposition bloc bears little resemblance to the one that unseated Netanyahu in 2021. In the four years that have passed since Netanyahu’s re-election, suspicions of corruption at every level of government have become so commonplace that the prime minister’s trial is not even a footnote in the parties’ campaigns. The differences between the parties that make up the anti-Netanyahu bloc are mostly a question of leadership style rather than policy, and the primary disagreements between them revolve around the issue of who will stand at the helm if they win.

The only party that doesn’t quite fit the mold is the Democrats, but leader Yair Golan is doing his best to blend in with his counterparts. A campaign ad highlighting the military ranks of the Democrats’ top contenders, reassurances that the time for the establishment of a Palestinian state has yet to come, and reports of reprimands to party members seen as too outspoken on matters related to the conflict are just a few examples of Golan’s efforts to shed the left-wing image that clings to the party from its Meretz past. And if that were not enough, he tarnished the Democrats’ claim to the title of champion of civil rights with his support for the disqualification of Balad chair Sami Abu Shehadeh.

More important, however, is the fact that the so-called opposition bloc does not differ significantly from its opponents on the existential issues that threaten Israel’s future. Aside from the Arab parties, there is no Israeli party that objects to the military strategy guiding the current government with regard to Iran, Lebanon, and Syria, and the leaders of the parties in the “change” bloc – every single one of them – are tripping over each other in their rush to clarify that Palestinian statehood will be a nonstarter if they form the next government. One may hear criticism of the government for failing to deliver on the annihilation of Hamas or on regime change in Tehran, and some may mention its failure to make diplomatic currency of the army’s achievements, but no one is challenging the premise that military prowess and territorial depth are the key to Israel’s security.

This election is being depicted as the most fateful in the history of the state because it will determine its character. Sadly, there are many signs that that battle has already been lost. One striking example is that the leaders on both sides are prepared to welcome Ofer Winter, head of the Amcha Yisrael party, into a coalition despite his promotion of a political platform that includes ethnic cleansing. The public is going to the polls faced with a choice between two blocs that differ primarily on domestic issues. On one side there is a governing right-wing coalition whose illiberalism extends to the civil liberties of the Jewish population, and on the other there is a right-wing coalition whose illiberalism is reserved for Palestinians, whether they reside in the occupied territories or are citizens of the State of Israel.

Unfortunately, the majority of progressive Israeli Jews believe the latter is good enough for now. They’re aware that such a government will not resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict, but they are ready to take what they can get if it means unseating Netanyahu. They believe that a “government of change” will convene a State Commission of Inquiry into the October 7 massacre, end the inequality in military service, get the economy and Israel’s relations with the international community back on track, and reintroduce truth and integrity to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO).

They may be right, and therein lies the danger of good enough. The danger that action against settler terrorists will be considered good enough, replacing pressure to end the occupation; the danger that enabling Gazans to feed their children and put a roof over their heads will be considered good enough, replacing pressure for the IDF to withdraw from the Strip; the danger that the international community will be so thankful to see the end of the Netanyahu era that it will shelve the measures it began to take against the settlement enterprise; and the danger that the Palestinians will resort to another October 7 to remind the world that benevolent occupation isn’t good enough for them.

Those counting on the Democrats to keep resolution of the conflict on the agenda of a “government of change” should recall the image of the Meretz MKs raising their hands in support of the “Judea and Samaria law,” which forms the basis of the apartheid system in the West Bank, in order to keep the Bennett-Lapid coalition intact. The only parties that have not accepted deferral of a political agreement with the Palestinians are the Arab parties, and their voices may actually carry weight if current projections of a stalemate prove true.

The stronger the Arab parties, the more difficult it will be for the opposition bloc to discount them. Despite the declarations by Eisenkot and Bennett about the illegitimacy of the Arabs as coalition partners, it will be difficult for them to ignore a powerful Arab bloc that holds the keys to the PMO. The 15 seats won by the Joint List in 2020 could be surpassed this time if the Arab turnout exceeds 65% and if those Israeli Jews who have been planning to settle for “good enough” decide to give their vote to the UAL or the Joint List.  Any other outcome will not reverse Israel’s alarming trajectory. A “government of change” without Arab representation will only slow the pace at which it is hurtling downward.